agip wrote:
amusing that a 77% chance of winning the house is considered an unlikely event.
ah deplorables. Not even math is within their reach. Good luck, MAGAs.
The midterms will be like Election Night 2016. Another disappointment for the libs. No Blue Wave.
agip wrote:
Trump Taxes Unleased wrote:
Oh, oh,. Disaster for Trump.
Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches From His Father
The president has long sold himself as a self-made billionaire, but a Times investigation found that he received at least $413 million in today’s dollars from his father’s real estate empire, much of it through illegal tax dodges in the 1990s.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html?mtrref=undefinedWill THIS be enough to put this criminal in an orange jumpsuit? How many crimes does he get to commit? When will the law control this animal?
"Much of this money came to Mr. Trump because he helped his parents dodge taxes. He and his siblings set up a sham corporation to disguise millions of dollars in gifts from their parents, records and interviews show. Records indicate that Mr. Trump helped his father take improper tax deductions worth millions more. He also helped formulate a strategy to undervalue his parents’ real estate holdings by hundreds of millions of dollars on tax returns, sharply reducing the tax bill when those properties were transferred to him and his siblings."
It is really insane how criminal he is.
We never see a story like..."Turns out Donald Trump overpaid his taxes and is owed a $413 million dollar refund."
I still submit that Trump will have his comeuppance, but I no longer will be surprised if he doesn't. Watching Lindsey Graham switch from a harsh critic of Trump to his biggest butt kisser and listening to Jeff Flake say that if he weren't retiring he would not have been able to request the FBI investigation just tells me that there is absolutely no integrity left anywhere in politics. I did have my doubt of course, but when even the few seeming lights of reason aren't really that, then you can't count on logic winning out.
Butt Man wrote:
agip wrote:
amusing that a 77% chance of winning the house is considered an unlikely event.
ah deplorables. Not even math is within their reach. Good luck, MAGAs.
But Hillary was at 78% in October.
And Trump drew the Ace on the river. Y’all still acting like 2016 was normal. The winner lost the popular vote by 2% and won 3 states by a TOTAL of less than 78,000 votes....and 2 of those states haven’t turned Red since Reagan.
Clinton isn’t running in 2020....at least I hope not so the Clinton-hate vote won’t be there and assuming a woman doesn’t run the woman-hate vote also won’t be there.
Alan
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
The Russia collusion story has blown up in the Democrats face, families separated at the border has blown up in the Democrats face, the Stormy Daniels story has blown up in the Democrats face, the Kavanaugh story has blown up in the Democrats face, so guess what they're back to talking about? Trump's taxes from the 1990's.
The Blue Wave story will also blow up in the Democrats face. The smell of desperation is thick in the air. This is getting fun.
"The Democrats need 23 seats at a minimum to claim the House back. Only once since WWII have the Republicans ever lost more than 23 seats in their first midterm- and it was 26 seats in 1982. Based on these odds, the Democrats would need something historic to take back the House."
https://etholytics.com/house-seat-loss-by-presidents-party-has-been-inflated-by-democrat-presidents/
Now's the time on Sprockets vhen ve dance!
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Runningart2004 wrote:
You and Dooger are trying to use coventional wisdom to explain an unconventional president. Has anyone EVER won the presidency with 46% of the popular vote (without a 3rd party candidate getting over 15%)? Nope. Clinton lost WI and MI, which has been blue for decades. You seem to forget how unlikely his win was.
Dems take control of the House. That is a lock.
Trump loses in 2020. That is a lock (mostly because I believe Mueller will release a report sometime in 2019, partially due to these bad tariffs, partially due an economy that is destined to cycle back down).
But I’m sure after the election we will hear about how their were millions of fraudulent voters, how the Dems stole it unfairly, etc. Thus is the political cycle.
Alan
Concerning the midterms, the Dems are NOT a lock to take the House- which is "unconventional" wisdom.
Demorats take the House for sure.
So do the Democrats.
Flagpole wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
The Russia collusion story has blown up in the Democrats face, families separated at the border has blown up in the Democrats face, the Stormy Daniels story has blown up in the Democrats face, the Kavanaugh story has blown up in the Democrats face, so guess what they're back to talking about? Trump's taxes from the 1990's.
The Blue Wave story will also blow up in the Democrats face. The smell of desperation is thick in the air. This is getting fun.
"The Democrats need 23 seats at a minimum to claim the House back. Only once since WWII have the Republicans ever lost more than 23 seats in their first midterm- and it was 26 seats in 1982. Based on these odds, the Democrats would need something historic to take back the House."
https://etholytics.com/house-seat-loss-by-presidents-party-has-been-inflated-by-democrat-presidents/Now's the time on Sprockets vhen ve dance!
Kavanaugh will be confirmed
Mueller never
Clownpole forever
Kavanaugh sent to the showers to cry in the arms of Mark Judge
Mueller sends trump to pound-him-in-the-arse prison
Trump loses, again!
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
agip wrote:
amusing that a 77% chance of winning the house is considered an unlikely event.
ah deplorables. Not even math is within their reach. Good luck, MAGAs.
The midterms will be like Election Night 2016. Another disappointment for the libs. No Blue Wave.
definitely going to put this one in my calendar to bump on election night.
Trump Taxes Unleased wrote:
Oh, oh,. Disaster for Trump.
Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches From His Father
The president has long sold himself as a self-made billionaire, but a Times investigation found that he received at least $413 million in today’s dollars from his father’s real estate empire, much of it through illegal tax dodges in the 1990s.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html?mtrref=undefined
The latest hit job by the NY Times on Trump's taxes missed one essential point. Trump and his family have been audited repeatedly through the years. If "blatant fraud" existed, wouldn't that army of IRS agents found something? This is just more BS to get the libs triggered again.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Trump Taxes Unleased wrote:
Oh, oh,. Disaster for Trump.
Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches From His Father
The president has long sold himself as a self-made billionaire, but a Times investigation found that he received at least $413 million in today’s dollars from his father’s real estate empire, much of it through illegal tax dodges in the 1990s.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html?mtrref=undefinedThe latest hit job by the NY Times on Trump's taxes missed one essential point. Trump and his family have been audited repeatedly through the years. If "blatant fraud" existed, wouldn't that army of IRS agents found something? This is just more BS to get the libs triggered again.
It's not a hit job - it's journalism. Sorry if you are unfamiliar with it.
The sad answer is that the US tax system is largely an honor system. People with no honor, like our president, can and will cheat it, over and over again.
So that is your answer.
and don't even try to claim Trump's taxes are being audited or have been audited. There is zero proof of an audit, last time I checked.
Trump and his lawyer said they were. Trump lies about everything.
Shame on you for believing him.
agip wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
The latest hit job by the NY Times on Trump's taxes missed one essential point. Trump and his family have been audited repeatedly through the years. If "blatant fraud" existed, wouldn't that army of IRS agents found something? This is just more BS to get the libs triggered again.
It's not a hit job - it's journalism. Sorry if you are unfamiliar with it.
The sad answer is that the US tax system is largely an honor system. People with no honor, like our president, can and will cheat it, over and over again.
So that is your answer.
I guess the NY Times knows more about tax law than Trump's tax attorneys and the IRS combined. The endless loop. They’re back on taxes again, then comes Russia collusion, Avenatti again- the media's desperate mission to get rid of Trump is so obvious.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
agip wrote:
It's not a hit job - it's journalism. Sorry if you are unfamiliar with it.
The sad answer is that the US tax system is largely an honor system. People with no honor, like our president, can and will cheat it, over and over again.
So that is your answer.
I guess the NY Times knows more about tax law than Trump's tax attorneys and the IRS combined. The endless loop. They’re back on taxes again, then comes Russia collusion, Avenatti again- the media's desperate mission to get rid of Trump is so obvious.
i understand that you don't believe in the concept of knowledge and experts. But anyway, the Times used tax experts to decipher the illegal tax moves by the trump family. Not journalists.
agip wrote:
and don't even try to claim Trump's taxes are being audited or have been audited. There is zero proof of an audit, last time I checked.
Trump and his lawyer said they were. Trump lies about everything.
Shame on you for believing him.
I wonder what the payment back of those taxes plus penalties would be? He's in such debt already. I'm not sure he has a net worth above zero. In sane for someone who inherited so much money. One of he worst businessmen ever, but the KING SCAM ARTIST.
agip wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
I guess the NY Times knows more about tax law than Trump's tax attorneys and the IRS combined. The endless loop. They’re back on taxes again, then comes Russia collusion, Avenatti again- the media's desperate mission to get rid of Trump is so obvious.
i understand that you don't believe in the concept of knowledge and experts. But anyway, the Times used tax experts to decipher the illegal tax moves by the trump family. Not journalists.
The IRS was weaponized under Obama and went after conservative groups. They could not and did not find fault with Trump's returns.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
The IRS was weaponized under Obama and went after conservative groups.
Idiot. Those "con"servative groups were filed as fake non-profits. They have been used as dark money funding for republicans, and to hide the real donors--Russians.
When 538 had the Dems at 34% chance to gain majority in the senate they had:
The Dem probably flipping NV an AZ and Heitkamp probably keeping the Dem seat in ND.
If all of their lead picks held, the Dems would take control.
Now they have Heitkamp behind in ND.
They also have Cruz easily beating Beto in TX but I don’t know about that.
And TN could still flip from red to blue.
The whole control of the senate may come down to Heitkamp vs Cramer in North Dakota.
Heitkamp voted to confirm Gorsuch, going against her fellow Democrats.
Now there is a vote on Kavanaugh. She expected to vote no and is in a red state. Her no vote could cost her the election and Dem control of the senate.
A yes for her may put Kavanaugh on the bench but get her the win and Dems control of the senate.
I think the senate is still up for grabs and we have no idea what first time or irregular voters may show up.
L L wrote:
When 538 had the Dems at 34% chance to gain majority in the senate they had:
The Dem probably flipping NV an AZ and Heitkamp probably keeping the Dem seat in ND.
If all of their lead picks held, the Dems would take control.
Now they have Heitkamp behind in ND.
They also have Cruz easily beating Beto in TX but I don’t know about that.
And TN could still flip from red to blue.
The whole control of the senate may come down to Heitkamp vs Cramer in North Dakota.
Heitkamp voted to confirm Gorsuch, going against her fellow Democrats.
Now there is a vote on Kavanaugh. She expected to vote no and is in a red state. Her no vote could cost her the election and Dem control of the senate.
A yes for her may put Kavanaugh on the bench but get her the win and Dems control of the senate.
I think the senate is still up for grabs and we have no idea what first time or irregular voters may show up.
That's your first mistake. You follow the left biased Nate Silver who completely blew it in 2016. The Senate is not up for grabs, that is wishful thinking for which you rely on 538 for confirmation bias. Look the polls that use "Likely Voters" instead of a "Registered Voters" model. Likely voter models have historically been more accurate over the years. You have a decent shot of taking the House, but I would not guarantee that.
If you want guarantees, go to Flagpole. But we all know what happens when he makes election guarantees...
L L wrote:
When 538 had the Dems at 34% chance to gain majority in the senate they had:
The Dem probably flipping NV an AZ and Heitkamp probably keeping the Dem seat in ND.
If all of their lead picks held, the Dems would take control.
Now they have Heitkamp behind in ND.
They also have Cruz easily beating Beto in TX but I don’t know about that.
And TN could still flip from red to blue.
The whole control of the senate may come down to Heitkamp vs Cramer in North Dakota.
Heitkamp voted to confirm Gorsuch, going against her fellow Democrats.
Now there is a vote on Kavanaugh. She expected to vote no and is in a red state. Her no vote could cost her the election and Dem control of the senate.
A yes for her may put Kavanaugh on the bench but get her the win and Dems control of the senate.
I think the senate is still up for grabs and we have no idea what first time or irregular voters may show up.
That's your first mistake. You follow the left biased Nate Silver who completely blew it in 2016. The Senate is not up for grabs, that is wishful thinking for which you rely on 538 for confirmation bias. Look the polls that use "Likely Voters" instead of a "Registered Voters" model. Likely voter models have historically been more accurate over the years. You have a decent shot of taking the House, but I would not guarantee that.
+1
Jakob Ingebrigtsen has a 1989 Ferrari 348 GTB and he's just put in paperwork to upgrade it
Strava thinks the London Marathon times improved 12 minutes last year thanks to supershoes
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
Clayton Murphy is giving some great insight into his training.
NAU women have no excuse - they should win it all at 2024 NCAA XC
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion